Skip to main content

About your Search

20131124
20131202
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
with the details. steve? >> reporter: michelle, thanks. here in washington a lot of senators in both political parties say they're ready to vote like the house already has for tougher sanctions. but president obama is asking them, and when he spoke today to israel's benjamin netanyahu, he also presumably asked the hard-line israeli leader give me six more months to see if this new, some would say softer diplomatic approach can work to get iran to give up building the bomb. the president spoke today in san francisco. >> none of that is going to be easy. huge challenges remain. but we cannot close the door on diplomacy. and we cannot rule out peaceful solutions to the world's problems. we cannot commit ourselves to an endless cycle of conflict. and tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it's not the right thing for our kurt. security. it's not the right thing for our security. >> so the iranians will get access to some of their cash frozen in foreign banks and get to make some money selling petrochemicals. still no sale of oil will be allowed. and in return they agre
getting a tax exemption, so is the obama team simply trying to make the illegal actions of its own irs now legal? here is jay seculo, chief counsel for the american center for law and justice. good to have you here, sir. >> thanks for having me. >> i know you're a lawyer and pretend you're not one tonight. what are they trying to do here? >> well, you know, even as a lawyer i'll explain it. it's real simple. the government is trying to engage in basically a post-hoc justification for their illegal conduct. they are trying to do what they did illegally, which they acknowledged was illegal targeting of the group and trying through the regulatory process which appears to be this administration's specialty to make it now legal what they did. it's not going to work. in fact, it really shows you the duplicity of the agency here that they would even propose this in the middle, michelle, in the middle of litigation, so there is litigation pending, and they changed the rules, and they want those rules to apply retroactive, and frank lit new rules violate the first amend sglnt does it say retroactiv
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2